Non-Lds Scholars Debunk Meldrum

[Bob Crockett]

But, there are ways to test the quality of dogmatic assertions of fact, or rather, is this a position of revealed fact?

The mere possibility that our religion admits the prospect of error should not be used to imply that there is, indeed, error in what appears to be stated as a revealed fact. Just because I'm human and have been known to err does not mean that I should be questioning whether I really have a job I go to every day, with an office and a car to get me there. At some point, your arguments about error become existentialist to the point that everything is up for grabs, and I can't accept that.

In the case of the location of Hill Cumorah, we have a very detailed statement from Oliver Cowdery, who claims to have obtained it from Joseph Smith, published in an official church publication that Joseph Smith helped to edit. The Church's current Word of Wisdom is based on a weaker connection than that, with a statement attributed to Hyrum Smith about tea and coffee.

When the Church acquired the Hill Cumorah, it dedicated a general conference to the subject. Therein Pres. Ivins, with Pres.Grant sitting behind him, said that we "positively know" that the hills are one and the same.

Plus, we have absolutely nothing to the contrary from the Brethren and indeed Sorenson's views were edited out of the Ensign.

I could go on. At this point, positing the possibilty of error now approaches existentialism. Am I really here? Did I just type that?

Edited May 3, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[Kevin Christensen]

But, there are ways to test the quality of dogmatic assertions of fact, or rather, is this a position of revealed fact?

The mere possibility that our religion admits the prospect of error should not be used to imply that there is, indeed, error in what appears to be stated as a revealed fact.

From the start, the issue arose because what has been stated as though it were revealed fact doesn't make sense of the Book of Mormon descriptions. Provide the sense, demonstrate the heretofor missing consistency, actually answer the questions, rather than attempting to shout them down or bury them under a stack of untested certainties.

The argument is not just that D&C 1, for instance, raises the possibility of errors that shall be made manifest, but that the inconsistency between the Book of Mormon description and the New York hill seems to many of us to provide just that kind of demonstration. That is, the issue is in the visible demonstration, not just the possibility of something not demonstrated.

And this is followed by demonstrations of other candidates for the hill that provide better fits. Palmer, for one, and Larry Poulsen with another.

Just because I'm human and have been known to err does not mean that I should be questioning whether I really have a job I go to every day, with an office and a car to get me there. At some point, your arguments about error become existentialist to the point that everything is up for grabs, and I can't accept that.

Again, justing labeling my arguments (existentialist), or the authorites I have cited does not address the textual issues. Where does Joseph Fielding Smith ever deal with Sperry's questions?

http://maxwellinstit...l=4&num=1&id=98

In the case of the location of Hill Cumorah, we have a very detailed statement from Oliver Cowdery, who claims to have obtained it from Joseph Smith, published in an official church publication that Joseph Smith helped to edit. The Church's current Word of Wisdom is based on a weaker connection than that, with a statement attributed to Hyrum Smith about tea and coffee.

When the Church acquired the Hill Cumorah, it dedicated a general conference to the subject. Therein Pres. Ivins, with Pres.Grant sitting behind him, said that we "positively know" that the hills are one and the same.

Plus, we have absolutely nothing to the contrary from the Brethren and indeed Sorenson's views were edited out of the Ensign.

I could go on. At this point, positing the possibilty of error now approaches existentialism. Am I really here? Did I just type that?

One of the constraints on LDS change is the requirement for unanimity. It only takes one voice to edit Sorenson's views out of the Ensign. And that Deseret Book shortly published Ancient American Setting, of course, counts for what? Or President Hinkley's inviting FARMS to become part of BYU? That was not exactly smiting the heretics.

And do the descriptions of the hill in the Book of Mormon fit the New York hill? Did Mormon and Moroni really write? Did they walk the ground?

I think they did, and that on this question, they are the highest ranking prophetic and eye-witness authorities. I just don't see how any assertion that does not fit with their descriptions matters more than what they gave us. And their descriptions are conspicuously absent from every assertion about the New York hill. The longer the lists of authoritive declarations become, the more evidence I see of that absence.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited May 3, 2012 by Kevin Christensen

[Bob Crockett]

And so, the highest and best authority in the Brethren for a different Cumorah is whom?

[cdowis]

But, there are ways to test the quality of dogmatic assertions of fact, or rather, is this a position of revealed fact?

There should be an document signed by the First Presidency, a record of a revelation or vision, or, at the least, a statement to that effect. Or, a direct personal knowledge.

In the case of the location of Hill Cumorah, we have a very detailed statement from Oliver Cowdery, who claims to have obtained it from Joseph Smith, published in an official church publication that Joseph Smith helped to edit. The Church's current Word of Wisdom is based on a weaker connection than that, with a statement attributed to Hyrum Smith about tea and coffee.

We have revelation regarding the Word of Wisdom, scripture. A statement from Cowdery is hearsay at best. We don't know where his opinion ends and where JS begins. In any case, there is no evidence that JS knew anything about BOM geography thru personal knowledge or revelation. If you can find that revelation, we would appreciate it. We only know that there is a hill in NY called Cumorah, just as there is a city called Rome (and Athens) in the state of Georgia.

When the Church acquired the Hill Cumorah, it dedicated a general conference to the subject. Therein Pres. Ivins, with Pres.Grant sitting behind him, said that we "positively know" that the hills are one and the same.

How exactly did he "know"? Did they claim a personal revelation? Or do they have personal knowledge? If they were alive today, we could ask them, so we cannot verify their claim. Has their statement, like the Word of Wisdom, been canonized? I have no obligation to accept their statement, based on the warning of BY on such statements.

Do you honestly think that Pres Grant sitting behind him canonizes his statement? He probably didn't think it was worth correction, since it is not a doctrinal issue.

Plus, we have absolutely nothing to the contrary from the Brethren and indeed Sorenson's views were edited out of the Ensign.

What specific statements? What is your source? **Why** were they edited.

I could go on.

You haven't even started. Let's see your response to my questions.

Edited May 3, 2012 by cdowis

[cdowis]

Note further that when the Brethren condemn speculative Book of Mormon geography, they do so in the context of defending the New York location for Cumorah.

So, my views such as they are is that it is wrong to engage in attempts to move Cumorah to some other location and to try and pin Zarahemla and other parts of the Book of Mormon to particular places.

The question thus becomes are my points official? Yes; they come from "official" sources; namely, CR reports mostly. JF Smith's came in a priesthood manual, and is contained in a reference book still in publication. In particular, Ivin's statement was made in the General Conference following acquisition of the Book of Mormon.

Clearly your idea of revelation and doctrine is very different from mine and it is very unlikely that we will come to an agreement. In your view, our search for Zarahemla is tautamont to changing the doctrine of the Atonement.

BOM geography is doctrine and only apostates will question it.

Are the points doctrinal? Who knows.

You claim to know.

If you disclaim it as doctrine, then your entire argument falls apart. It then becomes a factual issue, subject to research and investigation.

You can't have it both ways. The Atonement, the priesthood, baptism, repentance and now BOM geography.

Edited May 3, 2012 by cdowis

[Bob Crockett]

CDowis:

We have revelation regarding the Word of Wisdom, scripture.

Actually, not entirely. The reason why we believe that "hot drinks" refers to coffee and tea is because of a statement attributed to Hyrum Smith. http://en.fairmormon...sdom/Hot_drinks It thus follows that a statement made by Oliver Cowdrey in an official publication is a statement of church dogma. That isn't hearsay, either, as it is an utterance from an official Church organ. Really now, any reasonable student of the rules of evidence would hold Cowdery's statement in pretty high regard as very likely having the approval of Joseph Smith.

How exactly did he [ivins[ "know"? Did they claim a personal revelation? Or do they have personal knowledge?

When a member of the First Presidency says "we know positively" and there is President Grant sitting right behind him, I'd say that is enough.

Do you honestly think that Pres Grant sitting behind him canonizes his statement? He probably didn't think it was worth correction, since it is not a doctrinal issue.

Technically, canon in the Church is limited to the quad. That's interesting that you'd assume ("probably") that Pres. Grant thought it an error and chose not to correct it. I think that an extreme stretch.

You claim to know.

I just said I didn't.

It then becomes a factual issue, subject to research and investigation.

if one is disposed to disbelieve the Brethren.

What specific statements? What is your source? **Why** were they edited.

That's been discussed previously and thoroughly on this board. One of posters here was involved in the editing.

And so, the highest and best authority in the Brethren for a different Cumorah is whom?

Edited May 3, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[Cold Steel]

The point is, stop appealing to statements from the Brethren. The official stand of the church NOW is that no one knows where the Book of Mormon took place. If the New York drumlin is the Hill Cumorah, it has to meet certain criteria, none of which the New York hill meets. Garth Norman lists these criteria:

• Near an eastern seacoast.
  
• Near the Narrow Neck of Land.
  
• Located overlooking a coastal plain where the enormous approaching Lamanite armies could be seen by the whole Nephite nation camped around its slopes, and where Mormon from the summit could view the extensive fields of dead from the several armies after the final battle.
  
• Located a distance of a one-day journey from a large body of water called Ripliancum.
  
• Located in a land of many waters, rivers, and fountains (springs).
  
• Located in a land of ample water and rich land to sustain the Nephite nation while preparing for the final battle.
  
• Located where Nephites could escape from the final battles and flee into the land southward.
  
• Located in a region of volcanic and earthquake activity that characterized nearby land Bountiful.
  
• A significant and sacred landmark where both the Jaredite and Nephite nations perished on the spot, and where sacred Nephite records were hidden by Mormon.
  
• A region of major civilization occupation during both Jaredite and Nephite-Mulekite times.
  

I would also add climate, as the Book of Mormon is very specific in describing a tropical setting. And frankly I never see anyone addressing this. Mormon hid up many other records in Cumorah, and we're told that there's a room full of records there. A drumlin in dirt, and thus it's impossible to create rooms that have any type of structural integrity. Moroni deposited the plates in a stone box covered by a rock. The hill and surrounding areas have been thoroughly explored by everyone from armchair archeologists to Boy Scouts, and the drumlin just doesn't meet the various geographical criteria established by the Book of Mormon writers. Satellite maps also show that the New York drumlin fails to meet these criteria.

I'd love for the New York hill to be Cumorah, but for years anti-Mormons have criticized the hill for the same reason that modern LDS scholars have. If proponents of the New York hill stopped appealing to statements by modern prophets and authorities, they would have very little to bolster their views. For the sake of scholarship, I suggest that only the writings of Book of Mormon prophets be used, and only statements having to do with geography. Surely if the New York Cumorah was where the battles occurred, the issue can be settled by appealing to the Book of Mormon geography alone. Until the heartland and other New York Cumorah advocates agree to a set of rules, the issue will never be resolved.

[Cold Steel]

Unfortunately, Stephen's book was about the Maya and the ruins he and Catherwood illustrated were after the Book of Mormon timeframe, though I believe the Maya cities were founded before then. Also, F.A.R.M.S. has admitted the Nephites were not the Maya http://maxwellinstit...d=66&chapid=738 thus implying the Prophet's excitement about it was in error.

Agreed, but the style of buildings tend to remain the same much as our cities. Although the Nephites were probably not the Maya, it's entirely possible that they were either a part of that culture or co-existed with it. The Nephites would have had to have been a major part of the Mayan culture because they had armies of many thousands of men moving freely about in lands we now associate with Maya. And the Lamanites almost certainly would have been very closely associated with the Maya as the Maya had a lust for blood and human sacrifice. The Nephite culture corresponds to the same times the Maya were in Mesoamerica, and the Olmec civilization corresponds to the same period of time of the Jaredites.

Since the Nephites are not considered the Maya - discovered through research about the Maya in recent decades - the LGT theory has changed to the "Nephites living among the Maya." This contradicts with the text of the Book of Mormon. There is no mention of others in the text besides the Lamanites, Mulekites, Nephites and the extinct Jaredites - though some of these scholars would try to convince you otherwise.

I recommend you watch the second Journey of Faith video. It deals with that topic.

But that is but a recent attempt to explain the contradiction that the Nephites were never the Maya - but lived among them. This wasn't even mentioned by Joseph Smith or those around him. Joseph Smith, if he wrote it, said Stephen's book helped "support the testimony of the Book of Mormon." But the Book of Mormon also talks of other sheep besides the Jews in Jerusalem and the Nephites in the Americas.

I agree that the Nephites spread into North and South America, but the Book of Mormon record doesn't cover them. I also think there's no doubt but what the Hill Cumorah was in Mesoamerica. Again, I recommend

.

No one is claiming the Nephites lived among cold and ice. The Nephites gradually were forced northward over time by the encroaching Lamanites. The only time "weather" is mentioned in the Book of Mormon is when it was unusual - such as extended droughts, strong whirlwinds. It's not a primer on meteorology or to express a person's personal discomforts, such as fleas, ticks, or cold.

No, but if there was cold, the modes of dress would not be the same. When the Book of Mormon prophets were writing, they were writing in a tropical setting. During winter months, the weather was still hot and the Lamanites were wearing loincloths and shaving their heads. This is also covered elsewhere and in some detail.

This is likely because it was the nearest strategic location in which the Nephites/Mormon could assemble his people-after given permission in an epistle by the Lamanite King. Nor does the text indicate the battle was on that hill. The Nephites encamped around it. It was used an observation point. After the battle, Mormon fled south with 24 Nephites. This is likely because the Lamanites had already obtained the narrow neck or passage now north of them, entrapping them. (Note the text about the tower of sherizzah and how a Nephite army was separated from Mormon's army.) Captain Moroni, centuries earlier, noted the importance of that strategic point. It was probably lost before the last great battle - thus Mormon knew it to be the last struggle of his people.

See Sidney B. Sperry's article on whether there are two Cumorahs.

I'm not impressed with argumentum verbosium by scholars who contradict themselves, are still arguing over two rivers flowing north in Mesoamerica as being Sidon yet their main geography runs east-west which is really supposed to be north-south-contradicting the direction of their rivers, that the Nephites knew they were in a narrow neck of land despite never leaving it to observe a non-narrow neck of land, claim it all happened in a 500 x 200 mile area over 1,000 years (including the Jaredites) when it took 8 years to travel the length of the Arabia....

Again, I direct you to Larry Poulson's address cited above. Cheers!

[Bob Crockett]

The point is, stop appealing to statements from the Brethren..

A wildly inappropriate argument on a matter of revealed fact. No, I won't.

[cdowis]

Actually, not entirely. The reason why we believe that "hot drinks" refers to coffee and tea is because of a statement attributed to Hyrum Smith. (snip) It thus follows that a statement made by Oliver Cowdrey in an official publication is a statement of church dogma.

etc etc etc

emphasis mine

I think you will agree that we have fundamental differences in our views on the nature of doctrine and revelation. We live on very different planets in this matter, and there is no purpose in responding to your post.

"God has told us that it was in NY, and we can ignore the overwhelming evidence to the contrary and even the text of the BOM itself. It is official doctrine and have been told by the prophets to leave it alone."

Let's just agree to disagree.

Edited May 4, 2012 by cdowis

[Bob Crockett]

"God has told us that it was in NY, and we can ignore the overwhelming evidence to the contrary and even the text of the BOM itself. It is official doctrine and have been told by the prophets to leave it alone."

That certainly is not my argument.

The location of the Hill Cumorah is a revealed fact. It is like saying that Christ's resurrection is a revealed fact. These are facts revealed to modern-day prophets and apostles.

To contradict these two facts is to contradict God Himself.

But, this revealed fact says nothing about the location of the events in the Book of Mormon outside of the Cumorah environs, for which speculation and research might yield something, but in my view, it would be something very inconsequential.

The MesoAmerican-centric view of Book of Mormon events is interesting but too speculative for my tastes. This field of study reminds me of the Latter-day Saints who toured the Church about 15 years ago discussing their findings about the Shroud of Turin.

I may be living on a "different planet" but it is a planet supported by Michael Watson.

Edited May 4, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[wenglund]

I find it odd that when the United States is burning, the Mormon Church refuses to force all its CES employees to return to the original geographical premise and to solidify its support of America, instead of allowing its employess to geographically fight against Zion.

Any minute now, Romney critics will be using the anti-American statements by early church leaders to attack Mormons, and with their exclusive interest in Mesoamerica for where the BoM took place, it will be interesting to see how the church reacts.

Isn't dogmatist fighting illegal?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[cdowis]

That certainly is not my argument.

The location of the Hill Cumorah is a revealed fact. It is like saying that Christ's resurrection is a revealed fact. These are facts revealed to modern-day prophets and apostles.

I think that is what I said. We have no common ground to resolve the issue because your idea of doctrine and revelation does not match mine.

I believe it is a matter of factual investigation and research and you believe that it is a matter of official church doctrine and whatever we discover in this regard is irrelevant. The brethren have spoken, and the thinking has been done.

What more can I say.

Edited May 4, 2012 by cdowis

[Rivers]

Wow. This is the first big debate I've seen between mesotheorists and heartland theorists. I find it quite entertaining.

I'll put my two cents in by saying that I've seens several books in Deseret Book that favor the Mesoamerican setting and none that support the heartland setting. The church is very careful about about the books that are sold at Deseret Book and they don't seem to have a problem with Book of Mormon lands being in Mesoamerica.

http://deseretbook.com/Land-Promise-Images-Book-Mormon-Lands-S-Michael-Wilcox/i/4995211

http://deseretbook.com/Sacred-Sites-Searching-Book-Mormon-Lands-Joseph-L-Allen/i/5053490

http://deseretbook.com/Visualizing-Lands-Book-Mormon-Val-Brinkerhoff/i/4995421

So whatever past general authorites have stated about the matter, modern general authorites are totally cool with the mesoamerican theory for the setting of the Book of Mormon.

Edited May 5, 2012 by Rivers

[cdowis]

You missed this one on Meldrum and the Heartland Model.

http://deseretbook.c...ldrum/i/5071781

There are several very enthusiastic reviews where they mention that JS had received revelations on BOM geography. Meldrum has many disciples.

Edited May 5, 2012 by cdowis

[Calm]

Also this one: http://deseretbook.com/Prophecies-Promises-Book-Mormon-United-States-America-Bruce-H-Porter/i/5038426

[Tepui]

See Sidney B. Sperry's article on whether there are two Cumorahs.

Again, I direct you to Larry Poulson's address cited above. Cheers!

I'll refer you to one better by the late Dr. Sperry: http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=4&num=1&id=97 - Entitled: Moroni the Lonely....etc.

“Having finished the first paragraph of the title page, it is not unreasonable to presume that Moroni hid up the plates entrusted to him in the side of the Hill Cumorah, in the stone box built for the purpose. He then departed,

feeling that his work was finished, his father's commands having been carried out

. How long Moroni wandered over the face of the land—whether to be reckoned in years, months, or days—we do not know. But sometime between the years AD 401 and 421, he again saw fit to come back to the Hill Cumorah. (Mormon 8:6; cf. Moroni 10:1). Taking up the sacred record from its resting place in the stone box, he began to write at the point he had formally left off.”

Sperry then quotes the Prophet Moroni, (which should have given him a clue, but it didn’t):

“Now I, Moroni, after having made an end of abridging the account of the people of Jared,

I had supposed not to have written more

, but I have not as yet perished;

and I make not myself known to the Lamanites lest they should destroy me

. (Moroni 1:1)”

According to Sperry/F.A.R.M.S., the Lamanites chased Moroni all the way to New York from Mesoamerica. This is because, according to Sidney B. Sperry above, Moroni felt his work was finished the first time he buried the plates, but he later returned to the same hill to add more to the record – because he had not yet perished at the hand of the Lamanites - who had followed him - all the way to New York? (Moroni 1:1) So much for Moroni being lonely on a trek to New York.

Sorry. Sperry contradicted himself with the scriptures. And he didn't even know it. There was only one Hill Cumorah.

Have a nice weekend, everybody.

[cdowis]

I'll refer you to one better by the late Dr. Sperry: http://maxwellinstit...l=4&num=1&id=97 - Entitled: Moroni the Lonely....etc.

snip

Sorry. Sperry contradicted himself with the scriptures. And he didn't even know it. There was only one Hill Cumorah.

OK, are you willing to discuss this based on the evidence? Can we now look at the text of the BOM and see what it says about the location of the war of extinction.

Edited May 5, 2012 by cdowis